@LDS LiberalHere's how it works. When the courts overthrow a law the
ultra Cons hate, then the judges are strict constructionists. When they use the
exact same logic to toss out a law the ultra Cons like, then they are
"legislating from the bench."

I have two dogs. Why does the federal government discriminate against my dogs?
I should be able to claim them as dependents. The definition of
"dependent" in the federal regulations is unconstitutional. I pay for
my dogs' food, shelter, education, and entertainment. Why should a family
with children get tax benefits by claiming their children as dependents and I
don't get those same benefits? There is no difference between their
children and my dogs. We both take care of them and love them and consider them
part of our family. What is with this ban on dog dependents?

Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope is out in the open, what
possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy? There will soon be no
principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone else of age, because
that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system. You've done it
again!

Some will say that laws against polygamy are already on the books. Well,
that's what many states are trying to do with marriage protection laws
limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But supporters of gay marriage
claim that infringes on the rights of same sex partners who love each other to
be married to each other. The same argument can be applied to laws limiting
marriage to a single partnership of 2. In the same way, it infringes on the
rights of groups to inter-marry. I see this as a dangerous precedence and the
occurrence of stable homes and marriages will suffer as a result. Of course
there are lasting relationships of all kinds and many heterosexual relationships
fail. But society WILL take a hit when marriage is no longer protected as a
sacred union between a man and a woman. That's all I'm saying.

Actually, I think opponents of same-sex marriage will be pleased with this
ruling. Take note of the grounds for which the court ruled.

According to the judges' ruling, DOMA is unconstitutional because it
interferes with the rights of states to define marriage. This would suggest
support for the 30+ states that have defined marriage as between "one man
and one woman" in their state constitutions. Additionally, it would suggest
support for the voters of California to pass laws like Proposition 8, as they
have the right to define marriage in their state.

"Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope
is out in the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy?
There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone
else of age, because that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system.
You've done it again!

Polygamist compounds should relocate to
states that allow same sex marriage then let the lawsuits begin.

The courts haven't destroyed the sanctity of marriage... We have... Look at
our divorce rate! If we want a marriage that is pure, wholesome and eternal in
the sight of God, we can have it. The courts can't take that away from us!
Why is this a big deal?

It really sounds like a money issue to me.
Are we afraid we won't collect as many tax dollars from people living
alternative lifestyles?

John20000, your argument assumes that humans and dogs are equal which isn't
a valid comparison. I know you are trying to be clever and aren't serious
but with your line of reasoning, we should also allow dogs to vote.

I'm not sure why everyone gets so bent out of shape with gays trying to
get married. Especially in this state, it has become some religious duty to deny
equal rights for gays just because the bible condemns homosexual practices.
I'm sorry, but the world won't come to an end just because 2 guys or 2
gals get married.

I agree with commentors that polygamy should be
legal as well as long as they are consenting adults. It is hypocritical to deny
one and allow the other. The hypocrisy can go either way. Anyone who knows about
utah history would know that Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilfred Woodruff
wanted rights to pracite marriage in their own way so it's ironic that we
are now leading the charge against equal marriage rights.

If we open the legal marital union between gay lovers we MUST as a matter of
congruence open up marital union to polygamists.... Anything short of that will
be discrimination.... Polygamists should be able to file joint tax returns too
shouldn't they? Supposing that any of the wives have jobs..... Any argument
to the contrary simply shows ignorance that will never be overthrown so please
argue my point carefully.

So, let's get the balance of powers right. The legislative branch, led by
Congress (the House and the Senate), make the laws. They did that with DOMA,
passing it as law in 1996. The executive branch, led by the President of the
United States, enforces the laws passed by Congress. Then the judicial branch,
headed by the Supreme Court of the United States, interprets the laws and
decides their constitutionality. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws or
enforce them, and neither Congress nor the President should interpret them.

This law is going to the Supreme Court to be judged of its
constitutionality. However, it currently stands as law, and the President is
sworn under oath to enforce it! He is failing in that duty. His refusal to
defend the law is a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution.

Likewise, he refuses to enforce it because he deems it unconstitutional.
Therefore, he is overreaching his power into the judicial branch. He must
enforce it until they pass judgment.

Either way, Obama has broken his
oath of office. He should know his place! If he truly understood and loved the
constitution, he would enforce DOMA.

You had the chance to protect traditional Marriage with the compromise of
allowing Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships -- aka, legal records at
the County Couthouse, with a Justice of the Peace.No Church, No Religion,
No God.Just a legally binding document, like a business agreement.

Even the LDS Church's statements about securing legal rights for
the GLBT community could have been taken into account without the need for
redefining "Marriage".

But No, the Ultra-Conservatives had to
go for broke, All-or-Nothing.No compromise.

To @Hawkeye79 and @Anne26 posts I would have to say that there will be some
messy issues that will need to be resolved if this is left up to states (Not
saying this should not be a state issue, just saying it will be messy if it
is).

By moving across state lines, people could suddenly have their
marriage annulled?

If someone is on a vacation and gets injured and
they are on their spouse's insurance, will they be uninsured if the other
state does not recognize the marriage?

Does this have interstate
commerce ramifications? If so, can the federal government legislate this?

I am not sure why those that oppose gay marriage think they arguing to get out
of bring polygamy into the conversation every-time. Do they think are remaking
some kind of point? Every time they bring it up those that support gay marriage
always agree polygamy between consenting adults probably should be legal. So
again what is the point, maybe to try to find something we actually agree on?

The problem with that is, marriage is such an integral part
of society, how would 50 different laws work? If two men got married in MA, and
one got transferred at work to UT, would they still be married? One could argue
the 10th amendment, and the other could argue the full faith and credit clause.
There has to be one National Standard on something this big.

Personally, I think government should get out of "marriage" and allow
"unions". Require everyone to go to the courthouse to get married by a
Judge, and then whatever religious ceremony you want can be done afterwards.